Search

The dominant reactions to the horrific bombings on April 15th, the day of the running of the Boston Marathon, as well as the celebration of Patriots Day, have been so far: compassion for the victims, a maximal resolve to track down the perpetrators, a pundit’s notebook that generally agrees that Americans have been protected against terrorist violence since 9/11 and that the best way to prevail against such sinister adversaries is to restore normalcy as quickly as possible. In this spirit, it is best to avoid dwelling on the gory details by darkly glamorizing the scene of mayhem with flowers and homage. It is better to move forward with calm resolve and a re-commitment to the revolutionary ideals that midwifed the birth of the American nation. Such responses are generally benevolent, especially when compared to the holy war fevers espoused by national leaders, the media, and a vengeful public after the 9/11 attacks that also embraced Islamophobic falsehoods. Maybe America has become more poised in relation to such extremist incidents, but maybe not. It is soon to tell, and the somewhat hysterical Boston dragnet for the remaining at large and alive suspect does suggest that the wounds of 9/11 are far from healed

For one thing, the scale and drama of the Boston attack, while great, was not nearly as large or as symbolically resonant as the destruction of the World Trade Center and the shattering of the Pentagon. Also, although each life is sacred, the magnitude of tragedy is somewhat conveyed by numbers, and the Marathon incident has so far produced three deaths as compared to three thousand, that is, 1/1000th of 9/11. Also important, the neocon presidency of George W. Bush, was in 2001 prior to the attacks openly seeking a pretext to launch a regime-changing war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and the 9/11 events, as interpreted and spun, provided just the supportive domestic climate needed for launching an aggressive war against the Baghdad regime. The Iraq War was undertaken despite the UN Security Council failure to lend its authority to such an American deadly geopolitical venture and in the face of the largest anti-war global demonstrations in human history. In 2001 the preferred American grand strategy, as blueprinted by the ideologues of the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution, was given a green light by the Bush/Cheney White House even in the face of the red lights posted both at the UN and in the streets of 600 or more cities around the world.

Although there are many distressing continuities that emerge if the Obama presidency is appraised by comparison with the counter-terrorist agenda of his predecessors, there are also some key differences of situation and approach. Obama came to Washington as outspoken opponent of torture and of the Iraq War. He also arrived after the failed wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, which had devastated two countries, seemingly beyond foreseeable recovery, while adding nothing to American security, however measured. These unlawful wars wasted trillions expended over the several years during which many Americans were enduring the hardships and pain of the deepest economic recession since the 1930s. In other words, temporarily at least, the Beltway think tanks and the government are doing their best to manage global crises without embarking on further wars in a spirit of geopolitical intoxication that was hallmark of the unipolar moment that was invoked by Republicans to chide the Clinton presidency for its wimpish failure to pursue American strategic interests in the Middle East. Remember, as well, that this was the period of quick victorious wars that were also cheap when measured by casualties or resources. The Gulf War of 1991 and the NATO Kosovo War of 1999 were the poster children of this supposed revolution in warfare that enabled the United States and its allies to fight ‘zero casualty wars.’ At least it seems that for the present irresponsible and unlawful warfare are no longer the centerpiece of America’s foreign policy as had become the case in the first decade of the 21st century, although this is far from a certainty. The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.

Aside from the dangers and unacceptability of promiscuous wars, there are other serious deficiencies in how the United States sees itself in the world. We should be worried by the taboo at this moment of 24/7 self-congratulatory commentary imposed on any type of self-scrutiny by either the political leadership or the mainstream media. Unlike the aftermath of 9/11, there are a few hopeful signs of awakening to this one-eyed vision on the part of the citizenry. Listening to a PBS program hours after the Boston event, I was struck by the critical attitudes of several callers to the radio station: “it is horrible, but we in this country should not be too surprised, given our drone attacks that have killed women and children attending weddings and funerals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another caller asked “is this not a kind of retribution for torture inflicted by American security forces acting under the authority of the government, and verified for the world by pictures of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib?” And another asked, “in light of the authoritative reports of officially sanctioned torture as detailed in the 577 page report of a task force chaired by two former senators, one a Republican, the other a Democrat, and containing senior military and security officials, has not the time come to apply the law to the wrongdoers during the Bush presidency”? Can we not expect one among our politicians, other than the Tea Party darling Rand Paul, to have the courage to connect some of these dots? Should we not all be meditating on W.H. Auden’s haunting line: “Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return”?

The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East. Some of us naively hoped that Obama’s Cairo speech of 2009 was to be beginning of such a process of renewal, and although timid in many ways, it was yet possessed of a tonality candidly acknowledged that relations with the Islamic world needed a fundamental moves by the US Government for the sake of reconciliation, including the adoption of a far more balanced approach to the Palestine/Israel impasse. But as the months passed, what became evident, especially given the strong pushback by Israel and its belligerent leader, Bibi Netanyahu, were a series of disappointing reactions by Obama, which could be described as an accelerating back peddling in relation to opening political space in the Middle East.

Now at the start of his second presidential term, it seems that Obama has given up altogether, succumbing to the Beltway ethos of Israel First. Obama has acknowledged the constraints on his freedom of maneuver on these foreign policy issues, and seeks to confine his legacy ambitions to such domestic concerns as immigration, gun control, and health care. In so doing he is virtually abandoning the international agenda except to manage crisis diplomacy in ways that do not disturb the global status quo or weaken America’s global reach. Obama’s March trip to Israel, highlighted by his March 21st speech in Jerusalem, which was delivered as a love letter to the Israeli public rather than qualifying as a good faith effort to demonstrate his belief in a just peace. Such obsequious diplomacy was a disappointment even to those of us with low expectations in what the White House is willing to overcome the prolonged ordeal of the Palestinian people.

Aside from the tensions of the moment, self-scrutiny and mid-course reflections on America’s global role is long overdue. Such a process is crucial both for the sake of the country’s own future security and also in consideration of the wellbeing of others. Such adjustments will eventually come about either as a result of a voluntary process of self-reflection or through the force of unpleasant events. How and when this process of reassessment occurs remains a mystery. Until it does, America’s military prowess and the abiding confidence of its leaders in hard power diplomacy makes the United States a menace to the world and to itself. Such an observation is as true if the more avowedly belligerent Mitt Romney rather than the seemingly dovish Barack Obama was in the White House. Such bipartisan support for maintaining the globe-girdling geopolitics runs deep in the body politic, and is accompanied by the refusal to admit the evidence of national decline. The signature irony is that the more American decline is met by a politics of denial, the more rapid and steep will be the decline, and the more abrupt and risky will be the necessary shrinking of the global leadership role so long played by the United States. We should be asking ourselves at this moment, “how many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?”

A wholly predictable and pathetic commentary from someone who has made a career of hating Israel and America. I want to weep when I think of the damage that Falk and those like him have done to the thousands of university students they’ve taught over the years.

Criticizing Israel does not equal hating Israel.
It’s a fact that Israel has committed numerous war crimes against Palestinians. It is also fact that Israeli settlers engaged in terrorism against Palestinians. Maybe you should stop seeing only Israeli side of the conflict and take a look at a broader picture, Steve.

Somebody has to have the courage to tell the truth, that Israel is an aggressive, racist state and has a large 5th column operating in the US. I don’t know about Richard, but I do hate Isrel, what it has become.

As a young child in Europe I was told about the US, that great country across the ocean, where nothing was impossible. It was the country, that gave us hope during those dark years of WW II. It was the country, that set the standards of decency and democracy. How come those ideals seem to have been compromised by the masses and for what?
If they do have a true democracy, then it is fair to conclude, that what is happening today, is also the will of the majority, which in turn means, that they brought the impending misery upon themselves. It still does not explain though, how the mindset of the average American changed so much in the short time of a few generations. Or could it be, that they lost control over their own policies and subsequent destiny?

Your apparent ignorance of the fact that the United States of America is NOT, and never has been, a “true democracy” invalidates your ability to make any conclusions about our country. This includes your assessment of the “mindset of the average American”. I assure you, our mindset is not as easily interpreted as you or Mr. Falk seems to think, and it is not represented by the majority of mind numbed liberals living on the west and east coasts.

Spinoza, I believe our citizens have lost site of what America stood for during the WW II era. Today’s citizens carry that “all about me” mentality where they are looking for someone to give everything to them. The phrase “hard work” can only be held for a small percentage of Americans. Slowly, the foundation of our society is falling apart and the political leaders are not willing to take a stand. Leaders are voted into office on the premise of what will you give me instead of what will you do for me. Bottom line, to many handouts, not enough hard work.

Erich Friomm, on explaining “how the mindset of the average American changed so much”:

“It was the rise of Nazism—the incredible ease with which Hitler made his way to power first in Germany and then in Austria—that amazed Fromm and made clear to him that humanity at large was almost always drawn to the infantile comfort of having an external authority make all the decisions. Overnight, it seemed, millions of people, indifferent to the loss of democracy, were happy to capitulate to the rule of the strongman, relieved to feel order restored when they were being told what they could and could not do, no matter the human cost. ”

I had been wondering how you might manage to implicate the United States and Israel in the Boston Marathon atrocity, and how long it would take you to do so? But you’ve done it. And in record time.

However, with all due respect, I must point out there has not been one shred of evidence to support the notion that the alleged perpetrators were antagonized by American and/or Israeli actions in the Middle East or elsewhere. Your thesis is, as they say, a “red herring.” And worse, by using arguments often used to justify Islamic extremism, you imply a false identity for the two that ill serves America’s Muslim community and its counterparts around the world. Islamaphobes could not have done a better job of reinforcing an inaccurate and dangerous sterotype.

Above all, I ask your to consider the appropriateness of exploiting a moment of tragedy and mourning as an opportunity to grind a familiar political axe.

It does not feel like a time to grind a political ax, but you have to recognize that Prof. Falk does not try to rationalize the individual act, but to put it in a larger context, as he has done before.

Prof. Falk has proven his compassion for tragedy and mourning all life, and does not need to prove it again.

once again shows why we need to do away with the UN. Mr Falk blames the deaths of Patriots day on america, why doesnt he come out and talk about how the Jews are under attack in Isreal. my only words to him is leave the country if he doesnt like it, we give more aid and charity to other nations than any other country, look at the cash he gave to gaza, and jumped up and down when the world trade center fell.
god Bless America, and may the peace and love of jesus Christ be with you

Since compassion is a living entity, there is “all life” need of proof, continually. The moment you miss the opportunity to “prove your compassion” you are not compassionate.
To say that “Prof. Falk does not need to prove it again” can only come from a misunderstanding of it.
That being said, this is the worst time to be without compassion.. For Anyone. Those of us who simply can not muster any compassion at any time like this should keep our mouths shut, lest we be measured for it, and shown no compassion ourselves.
Does that make sense to you? Thank you.

If Falk “mourns all life,” then how can he support the culture of death that permeates Palestinian society?
“We love death like you love life.” Direct Hamas quote. The Palestinians were offered by both Barak and Olmert (2000 and 2008 respectively) very meaningful and generous foundations for peace. These were rejected, as all possibilities of peace will forever be rejected, because the greater Arab world, and Palestinians in particular, will NEVER accept a Jewish state. It does not serve their purposes in any way. Accept this and you will begin to understand why the Arab world says and does most things in relation to Israel.

You are wasting your time, Rabbi Ira Youdovin. A confirmed anti-Semite does not change his views nor the basis for his hate. Israel ought to remand the removal of Richard Falk forthwith for being totally unfit for the position and the Security Council must comply. Enough is enough!

Mr. Falk’s assertion is simply ridiculous. Could it be that the rest of the world, and Mr. Falk, are just jealous of U.S. success? How much further ahead would those countries, known to be the home of terrorists, be if they spent their money on making life better for their citizens instead of spending it on exporting terror. Has it dawned on anyone the tolerance that the U.S. has shown given that it could easily wipe out any and all of these annoying little countries (including the Palestinians) that are the cause of most of the world’s problems with violence. And, it could all be done without resorting to nuclear weapons. The U.S. tolerates their rhetoric and even the violence they export. The Palestinians will never have a successful state (even if it were created, which I support) because they can’t get out of their own way. They rather spend their money on war and terror rather than building their country and their people.

Well, Rabbi, you’re not correct. The younger terrorist told FBI investigators that his brother planned attacks because of Middle East mess (which includes American support for Israel; frequent Jewish settler terror attacks on Palestinians; etc). If you carefully read Richard Falk’s commentary you will learn that he does not support terrorism, but he is calling onto American political leadership to scrutinize its actions — example: US drones have killed thousands of Muslim women, children and elderly civilians. Do you Rabbi have any heart for Muslim victims?

I think the US government wants to hold its citizen in fear and for this a new “enemy” had to be created this time moslems and freedom fighters /=fighting against occupation/ in different countries.
Together with mainstream media brain-washing its citizen as it was after the WWII concerning Communism, former Soviet Union and its affiliates brought within a very short time the wanted results – visible today in the majority of US citizen’s willigness to believe that USA is still a great country, free and democratic, and therefore dumb to adversary warnings and any “wake-up call”.

The tragic point is: always are innocent people murdered and/or wounded.

Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with what the West does. It is first and foremost a result of the resurgence of Islam in the Muslim world as a belief system embracing in its most extreme forms an apocalyptic vision of world conquest. It indeed appeals to the downtrodden but their condition is a product of their own repressive regimes and economic hardship. As a global movement, it has no immediate aim other than sowing destruction. The ignorance of its apologists extends not only to the explicit ideology of radical Islam, there for all to see, but to their misunderstanding of how time is viewed in the East. In the West we want things to happen now. In the East people can wait. Acts of Muslim terror, inspired at the individual level by hatred, has the pragmatic aim of undermining Western societies and thereby paving the way for the ultimate triumph of Islam. This may occur in fifty or a hundred or a thousand years. Islam can wait. The patience of the East is proverbial. One can see it in Ho and Mao and Gandhi. When people who style themselves humanists refuse to acknowledge the vision and dangers of radical Islam it is small wonder that people with far fewer scruples step into the front lines to oppose it. Without the United States acting as a policeman for the world, the horrors of 9/11 will recur again and again. They are always trying, thousands waiting for an opportunity to strike. That is the reality. You can deny it as long as the murders are only on your television screens but you will look at it a little differently when it hits home.

Thank you Fred. I read Falk’s excerpt in today’s WSJ and was wondering why an esteemed paper would print such nonsense. I then realized the WSJ was pointing out the “we deserve it idiots” so they could rot under the harsh glare of the spotlight; These blame the victim essays are nauseating. I guess when the Shiite kill Sunni; and then Sunni kill Shiite; it’s because of the USA’s quest for world domination too huh? I guess Bpsnia was OK only because we defended Muslims being killed by Christians; but otherwise our merciful interventions are really motivated by our evil self interest?

Where is your evidence that “Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with what the West does.”

To start the ball rolling towards an evidence based discussion, i offer the work (and evidence) compiled by Robert Pape, written up in Dying to win”: http://amzn.to/105Tq7o

Pape has compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003—315 attacks in all. It includes every attack in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while attempting to kill others;… More than a “list of lists,” this database probably represents the most comprehensive and reliable survey of suicide terrorist attacks that is now available.”

The findings:

“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks than Hamas.

Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.”

You are confusing Muslim rationalizations for terrorism with the doctrines and worldview at its root. “Referencing” books that you are unequipped to evaluate is not an argument. Start by reading the Koran and the Hadith.

“But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron” (Sura 22:19-21).

Again, Mr. Skolnik seems to have a handle on the issue of what it is ideological reason within the Qu’ran ‘manifesto,’ that promotes violence, and induces clerics and individuals to come to violence conclusions in their choice of behavior. While a Christian (supposedly) learns to ‘turn the other cheek’ (despite that never being their historical practice) and a Jew learns to never discuss issues with other when angry (which can also be questioned!), a vast number of Muslims feel that behaving in anger and violence is viable and acceptable Indeed, the the remaining Boston bombing brother stated that his motives were ‘religious’ i.e. based on teachings and their reading of the Qu’ran. Without going into excessive detail we find loads of things that are clearly excessive and yet seen as acceptable:,’Allah does not like music and the tolling of bells’. The bell is the musical instrument of Satan… (Sahih Muslim, 24.5279). Various influential clerics, i.e. Sa’d Arafat, stated that wife beating was encouraged and permitted when she refuses to have sex with her husband. Various Islamic run regimes i.e. Egypt, Somalia, etc. openly practice Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as either obligatory (Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence) or recommended as “praiseworthy” (Maliki school) under Islamic Law. , Rape and sex slavery of females seized in war is recounted with approval in the Qur’an (Q 4:24; Q 33:50), hadiths, and Sirat (biographies of Mohammed). Across the board, Shari’ah dictates a comprehensive and totalitarian system of law and an aggressive military doctrine and has from it’s inception, along with a ruthless enforcement mechanism. The Koran demands a global campaign of jihad, to replace non-Muslim gov’ts with Islamic States governed by Shari’ah, and indeed to conquer Dar al-Harb (the house of war) with Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam). Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam as well, is firmly rooted in Islam’s foundational texts — both the Koran (verses such as 2:217 , 4:89, and by renowned Koranic commentators, i.e. Qurtubi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir, and Suyuti). Pew Survey data published in 2009 reflect the depth and prevalence of popular support among the Muslim masses for essentially hideous viewspoints. Specifically, the Pew findings reveal that among Pakistani Muslims, there is
“..a broad support for harsh punishments: 78% favor death for [apostates] those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers.” Then of course, there is all that we have come to learn about the Taliban, Hezbolla, Hamas, AL Quada and other Islamic groups, all professing and practicing uterly violent and repressive means of establishing Islamic societies. So, how we end up stating that Israel is essentially at fault and the causal factor for the violence it finds itself ideologically and militarily surrounded with, and confronting internally on a daily basis, or the local examples of say, the recent Boston bombings is difficult to understand and quite undeserved.
.

The only disagreement I would have with you, Richard, in this excellent essay, is that Obama has resigned himself and “given up altogether.” I think he is doing exactly what he was appointed to do and has not given up at all. He is pursuing a policy that will ultimately turn the U.S. into a fascist state.

@ Spinoza: I don’t know who you are, but the real Spinoza would have understood what is happening to America, just as he understood the fallacy of religion and tried to make others understand, just as Richard is trying to make American’s understand what has happened to their country.

@ Ira: You are as bad as the religious authorities in Spinoza’s time who put a “herem” on him. Your attitude to Richard Falk is just as close-minded.

Hi Richard,
Thanks for these reflections. As I take some time to, from my apartment here in São Paulo, read more deeply about the Marathon murders, I could not believe the type of coverage coming from mainstream US media… and worse of it all is that it somewhat reflects the outrageous position of other institutions just as implicated that had the public duty to do differently…
I am glad we can share this space to contextualize what happened within a debate that can perhaps help us heal. What you heard on PBS is a good sign, but it is the voice of whom to whom? While the debate within the US continues to happen mainly within progressive elite and academic circles, we will continue to move too slowly. Right? It just shows that the US continues to play dumb, because the critical voices outside the US are much more massified and speaking out loud just to fall in deaf years, which only mirrors the imperial behavior that is object of your solid critique.
I miss my friend Zeynep! I hope she come back soon to São Paulo.
A big hug to you and Hilal.
Camila

Thanks for such a reflective response that closely mirrors my own sense of this disparity between how most of America sees itself and how the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East, sees it. The culture needs mirrors more than drones if it is to move forward.

We are so glad that you & Zeynep have become friends. Hilal joins in sending you our love,

Richard,
It reads better now on your website (than Aljazeera’s!). In the aftermath silence I am struck by one devastating question:
Such handsome young men, matching the many in our societies, bringing dignity and pleasure to us all. So WHY did they do it? What sort of milieu suggests death over life, destruction over everyday pleasure?
Has mankind reached a sort of plateau so it turns the everyday into hell? If it has, it’s also time to change – for ourselves as well as the planet. As what lies within the question is the thought that attitudes (such as the bombers’ and the military) arise from the way we treat each other – our thoughts and our bodies – so, change is essential! Unless you believe mankind is evil, working against millions of years of evolution. Not even the bereft Palestinians think that!
Best regards,
Francis

Thanks, Francis, for such a thoughtful comment. I agree fully that the transformative energy must be deeply rooted, and is no where very evident in
the patterns of societal response whether it be Newtown or Boston. Richard

Apparently Liz (in her reply to your comment) doesn’t realize that America sends drones that kill many more innocents than these particular terrorists have. Our very government, not some “militia”or ad hoc tiny group, does this, Liz. Did you know?

In early 1979, when Falk was a professor of International Law at Princeton, he visited Iranian Revolution leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at his home in exile in France.[74] In a February 1979 New York Times op-ed, after Khomeini had returned to Iran, Falk wrote, “The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.”[36] Falk wrote that Khomeini’s “entourage was uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals,”[75] and that “having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.”

These impressions were based on a visit to Iran, and were shared at the time by many secular liberals who later revised their views. I also placed some qualifications on these ‘guardedly optimistic’ assessments. I have written about whether I was wrong to welcome at the time the struggle against the autocratic Shah. One of the things that Khomeini said to us in Paris was that ‘there was a river of blood between the Shah’s government and the Iranian people.’ Another was that he welcomed the prospect of ‘resuming my religious life, and getting away from politics.’ No one has explained as yet what went wrong, or established that Khomeini all along had a plan to assume power in Iran and turn the country in a theocratic direction. I offer no apologies for my views as expressed in 1979, although I am disappointed by most of what has happened in Iran since then.

Thanks for calling this to my attention. Actually, HRW did remove me in response to the UN Watch complaint, much to my distress. They did so by relying on a technical rule not invoked for several years that required persons with a position in government or the UN to give up any HRW committee assignments. I was disappointed by their behavior during this little incident. It indicated to me an absence of principled behavior in relation to Israel Palestine issues. Best wishes, Richard Falk

You were surprised because you are; quite frankly; an educated fool. Khomeini’s behavior was no surprise to anyone other than leftists whose heads remain firmly planted in the clouds; seeing a world the way they wish it to be; rather than as it is here today.

You are like Neville Chamberlin who called Hitler a gentlemen because he helped him on with his coat.

Of course you and these “secular liberals” changed your views on Khomeini. Your views were proven so wrong as to be laughable. Today, you think people should trust your view that Hamas really isn’t out to kill Jews and wipe out Israel despite all evidence to the contrary. This position is just as laughable.

Permit me to add, with regard to your inappropriate commentary, that the moral bankruptcy of the arguments you are advancing lies in your creation of a system of equivalencies where any atrocity committed by a client of yours can be justified. America’s actions thus create the conditions that provoke terrorist attacks, Israel’s actions thus cause Arab terrorists to bombard its civilian population (because they have no other recourse, so can you blame them?), and of course if Iran did build a bomb and dropped it on Israel, this too would be justifiable or at least understandable in your eyes, because the Iranians would be driven to it by Israel’s threats, and that is precisely the blog you would produce in such an eventuality, and your readers would of course cluck their tongues and thank you for your moral insight. The victims are therefore always responsible for being murdered, if they are your adversaries, just as women are responsible for being raped (because they dress provocatively) and the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust (Walker Percy will tell you why). This is the logic of your way of thinking, and therefore the feeling I get from reading your blog and the comments that it attracts is that an event like 9/11 or the marathon murders does not elicit a modicum of real human feeling from any of you (because, I suppose, America brought it on itself) whereas an Arab murderer on a hunger strike arouses monumental indignation. Something is seriously wrong here, but, blinded by hatred yourselves, none of you is willing to recognize what it is.

Fred, thanks for the shout out. I don’t think that Jews are solely responsible for the Holocaust. While people of low intellect tend to think of the world in binary terms, reality is not like that. My belief is that, like in every dispute, there were two sides to the argument between the Germans and the Jews. But evidence of Jewish aggression and misbehavior has been cleansed from the historical record intentionally by individuals who only care about what they think is “good for the Jews”. Their intent was to make Jews seem blameless in that horrific episode, the same way you want us all to see Israeli Jews as entirely blameless now, and you find it puzzling that some say that the State of Israeli is guilty of terrible crimes, immorality and gross, continuous dishonesty. But the entire world (except you and a handful of your co-conspirators) is beginning to see what has happened. By behaving so atrociously in a time of global crisis (like in 1930’s), you are forcing the rest of the world to question what really happened in the second world war. Jews have perpetrated a massive fraud on the rest of us, with their lavish, self-financed Holocaust Museums all over America and the world. The Holocaust myth is instrumental to maintaining American support of Israel, which leads to worldwide terrorism.

Be careful, Fred, it looks like your little scam over there is unraveling faster than you can spin the hasbara to plug the leaks. Like I have said before, the Internet is an unstoppable truth machine, and once everybody understands how we have all been manipulated, there will be blow back like you can’t believe.
Good Luck!
Walker

“and of course if Iran did build a bomb and dropped it on Israel, this too would be justifiable or at least understandable in your eyes, because the Iranians would be driven to it by Israel’s threats”

For the last few years all I have read and seen in the media is Israel threatening to launch a preemptive 1st strike against Iran. The Iranians have had a long time to prepare for Israel starting WWIII-Armageddon.

What Israel wants is for the US to back them up when they start the hostilities so Iran cannot justifiably retaliate. Either way, it will be the beginning of the end of the systems of this world as the Jewish, Christian and Islamic Holy books all agree will be the result on that Great Day of the Battle of Almighty God.

There are more Jews living in Iran than in any other place in the Middle East outside of Israel. They are free to practice their religion in their own Synagogues. As a protected religious minority, they are guaranteed 1 seat in the Iranian Parliament.

This fact alone is evidence enough Iran does not have any irrational hatred for Jews.

Expanding Zionism, trying to recreate ancient Israel as it existed 3000 years ago by stealth, little by little, hoping the world won’t notice, is another matter altogether.

That’s quiet a straw man you’ve created there Fred. Maybe try sticking to the actual arguments in the text rather than hypothesizing random “what if’s”, and attempting to accuse a person for ideas and actions that have not even taken place like:
“if Iran…”; “that is precisely the blog you would write…”

The “blinded by hatred” statement, is also and effective way of garnering emotions from those who disagree with the connections Dr. Falk has made. There is no doubt you disagree with the professor, and you may have an argument somewhere, yet these statements do not provide any causality to your claim that: Falk’s ideas and actions are amoral.

Remark I:
I wonder how a suspect could be killed by police and no blast occured and put this suspect into pieces as one of the suspects had according to “information” of the mainstream media worn a bomb-belt and his body had too many shots.
However, it reminded me on the J.F.Kennedy case where one of the cought suspects was killed soon after – does this fit ? Years later, it has been acknowleded by the US government that J.F.K. had been shot by several people from different directions. During the sixties of the last century it fitted perfectly into the political scheme of the US government to accuse someone from the former Soviet Union. Same as these false-flag bombings in Europe during the Cold War-era carried out by US and NATO secret armies.
However, looking at false-flag bombings carried out by US (or Israel) both have a certain “handwriting”.
With these bombing/s there are too many facts not fitting into the scheme drawn by US government and written/transferred by obiendent mainstream media.

As I said above: USA needs to put its citizen into fear in order to lay out a certain political agenda and direction for USA and “for” its citizen for the near future. As to my knowledge, it worked perfectly in Boston. To hold a whole city into fear and close the whole town because of a few bombings carried out by suspects being observed for about five years permanently by FBI seems to me – and not only to me – somehow ridiculous and fits perfectly for an example in order to carry out an order onto US citizen and see how far citizen are willing to obey governmental implemented “rules”.

Remark II:
reading some of above posts and within the light of facts it was/is Israel who murdered several hundreds of Moslems and believers of other religions with its aggressions in the past decenniens – for example in the former Irak or in Lebanon; even not shrinking from the use of cluster bombs.
Further, in the light of the immediate past the millions of people murdered on purpose of the West as well the millions who had to flee and their homeland’s soil and waters for millions of years poisoned/polluted – the question who is the victim and who is the aggressor answers iself. Most of these victims were Moslems, some of other religious belief. But none of them did any aggression as a country to the Western powers.

To blame victims and putting on a predestal as being aggresors as well as blaming a certain religion’s believers seems not only to me simply ridiculous and just points to some writers pure intentions as well as to their own way of thinking by “puposedly accusing victims in order to set the aggressors free of responsibilities”.

As to history, it is well known who instigated the massacres in the Middle East/Jerusalem during the crusades and too it is well known how Cristians beheaved towards Moslems and Jews in Spain and in general too.

Not all reades of blogs are stupid as might be some of the posters think and assume.

Mr Falk – how do you respond to the claims of Hillel Neuer of the UN Watch group, who claims that your remarks above regarding Tel Aviv amount to a suggestion that Israel was responsible for the Boston bombings?

I never suggested such a connection. My reflections were only a commentary on focusing all attention on the wrongdoing of the perpetrators, and avoiding self-scrutiny as to why the United States, more than elsewhere, was the target of such extremist behavior. This has been a national characteristic ever since the atomic bombs were dropped at the end of World War II, and before as well. It does not lead to any kind of learning experience that might make the world a less menacing place to inhabit.

“My reflections were only a commentary on focusing all attention on the wrongdoing of the perpetrators…”

And, as such, we in the Realm of Patient Examination have been trying to get at just what the motivations of the perpetrators were, as they inconveniently have yet to provide such.

But you have made the leap that they exploded these bombs on behalf of all oppressed people in the world!

And suppose they had. It is one thing, as you well know, to engage in concerted terror campaigns with concise strategic demands against an occupying power. But to do so, with no strategic demands whatsoever, against one’s adopted home city, is as irrational than opening fire on schoolchildren with an automatic weapon.

Why would you expect a random act of terror to lead to some sort of “learning experience”?

Please explain your statement that “the somewhat hysterical Boston dragnet for the remaining at large and alive suspect does suggest that the wounds of 9/11 are far from healed.” Do you actually believe that a similar dragnet would not have been put in place if the suspects were believed to be anti-government terrorists? If so, how could this “somewhat hysterical Boston dragnet” suggest anything regarding “Islamophobic falsehoods”. If not, on what could you possibly base this belief?

Sorry, Prof. Falk, but you assuredly did suggest that Israel bears responsibility for the Boston bombings.

Let’s look at what you wrote. What you characterize benignly as a “reflection” was, in fact, an extended and detailed indictment of American policy throughout the world, with the strong implication that America deserves what it gets, including the murder and maiming of some 200 men, women and children at a sporting event. You praise callers to a radio talk show who expressed this view, including one who said that Boston was “a kind of retribution for torture inflicted by American security forces.” You urged readers to “connect the dots” on a trail that led to this: “…as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.” And by quoting Auden’s “Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return”, you make explicit an alleged linkage between Israel and Boston, even though there is no evidence of evil being done to either of the Tsarnaev brothers, and certainly none by Israel or Jews.

Finally, I am saddened that a man who claims to embrace an ethic rooted in love and concern for all humankind could not find it within himself to pause for a moment before unleashing his critique to express sorrow for the dead, including an eight-year-old boy, and extending condolences to their families and the wounded.

“My reflections were only a commentary on focusing all attention on the wrongdoing of the perpetrators, and avoiding self-scrutiny as to why the United States, more than elsewhere, was the target of such extremist behavior. This has been a national characteristic ever since the atomic bombs were dropped at the end of World War II, and before as well. It does not lead to any kind of learning experience that might make the world a less menacing place to inhabit.”

BINGO my views as well. It saddens me that there is such a narrow view of how violence is glorified and viewed as heroic in America.

Sir – your blatant mistake in claiming that the U.S. “more than elsewhere” has been the target smacks of not a blinkered world-view, but a purposefully blind one.
Islamic radicals have butchered tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq, Pakistan, Bali, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere. Yet a handful are murdered in America and you extrapolate this to claim that the U.S. is “THE” target.
Perhaps it’s time for you to move to Peshawar or Bagdad or Homs so you can see who the real targets are, and leave the pontificating to those who actually know what is going on.

In support of Brian Cohen’s recent comment, Islamic ‘extremist behavior’ is seen and experienced many places throughout the globe and on every continent. Shall we forget Somalia where Islamic extremist behavior occurs daily, not only in aggressive acts of killing, but also in 90% of women being subject to genital mutilation ‘in the name of Allah.’ Or Nigeria, Philippines, Thailand, throughout Africa and the Middle East. Far, far more Muslims, in fact, are killed in Islamic extremist acts, again ‘in the name of Allah,’ than by any other ethnic group. Or look at the iron grip that Hamas maintains in keeping the population of Gaza locked down under their extremist Islamic regime. The US has avoided much extremist behavior through it’s vigilant domestic security. Most other nations cannot afford that preventative security. But,where ever Muslims exceed 4-6% of the general population, the social instabilities seem to begin and increase, the higher the proportion of the Muslim population. Other than Ireland, I don’t find any ethnic or religious group more often involved in violence than Muslims – against all other religions and of course, as Sunni is pitted against Shi’ite. I do not see any religion in which violence, repression, or extreme socio-sexually related or political behavior are openly and ideologically condoned by it”s clerics and even sanctioned within the religion itself. In this regard, those who rhetorically profess that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ seem hard pressed to prove that .

Way to bring the hasbara. It seems that you are reading what you wish to read, and persist in quoting out of context. Your transparent attempt to bandy about charges of antisemitism aside, I only see two comments that pertain to Israel:

1. Obama’s reaction to the blocking of the peace process by the Israeli government is dissapointing.

2. “The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.”

Instead of adressing those comments on their merits, you use your “connect the dots” theory to reinterpret what is being said to suit your purposes, which are clear: any criticism of Israel’s No. 1 Strategic Asset, the unconditional and uninformed support of the US population, must be quickly and forcefully punished, preferably with allegations of anti-semitism.

You are fighting a losing battle: the population of the US is waking up, as evidenced by the BDS movement on campuses around the country.

Always blame, Israel, Prof Falk, isnt that your motto! As a teacher, I would think you would understand how to espouse accountability for one’s actions. The Jews have always been, and with people like you, always will be the world’s convenient scapegoat.

I think Fred Skolnik clarifies things quite well, and not much more needs saying, other than the simple fact that when outnumbered 40 to 1 in the Mid-East by such ideologically aggressive neighbors, and circa 100 to 1 on a global basis, it defies logic that the Islamic world should feel so confronted or challenged by that which is ..’Jewish.’ Somehow, although simplistic, it actually seems to boil down to something as silly as ‘envy,’ and ignorance, and to some extent self hatred. It’s the reason there are bullies in school playgrounds, even though they are the biggest and strongest of the kids at play, and seemingly the only reason Muslims resort to violence and hatred against every other religion. If the truth they held as self evident were actually self evident, they would proliferate all their own. When an terribly aggressive and seemingly paranoid ‘doctrine’ bases itself almost completely on violence, dogma and absolutism to establish and assert it’s ‘originality’ and ‘identity, i.e. through sanctioned conquest and violence – much like the disjointed and horrifying ideology of the Church in the European Middle Ages – the result is an historic imperative doing it’s best to conceal the truth of what it is, and what is has done to get where it is. From Insisting and terrorizing to convince the world was flat, now we insist that little Israel is at fault for the animosities of it’s aggressive and envious neighbors – noting the religious oppression, social inequality, instability and the systemic and outlandish repression of women’s rights and the long, long lists of human rights abuses which comprise the daily lives of nearly all the population of those Middle Eastern neighbors of Israel. So, from a birds eye view of the planet Earth, we look down at a dangerous and nearly indefensible ideological position, shared by over a billion people. The only real foothold on logic or reason seems to be the sole fact that they are so many.and that it is shrouded in the cloak of religion, offering it legal and empathetic protections – and despite the harshness and oppressiveness of that same ideology when it’s allowed to create a socio-politic framwwork like in S. Arabia, Yemen, etc. Indeed, it seems as if Islam itself has been captured and held prisoner by millions upon millions of pathologic strongmen radicals and ‘clergy,’ radicals who indoctrinate armies of youngsters into doing horrifying things in the name of ‘religion,’ Islam or God. I seriously doubt this vast core of pathological Muslims even speak for the greater masses of moderate and peaceful Muslims, except for their penchant for violence and bullying and the fear they invoke, like any group of bullies on the play ground. And, despite their overwhelming numbers. this ‘ideology’ seems oddly infected with a ‘little brother’ and a ‘little man’ complex, all rolled into one. Why else the need for such aggressive excesses? The need to justify it’s violent excesses extends to those so called scholars and academics who willing accommodate nice fitting rhetoric and rationalizations much like engineers and scientists in Peenemunde created V2 rockets for a dying German Nazi in WW2. To contend that the excesses and aggressive crimes of random terror directed toward Jews in Israel, or citizens of Boston, Nigerian Christians, or Coptic Christians, Hindus in India, etc. etc., or the well over 90% of Muslims who are killed by other Muslims, are actually the result of perceived crimes against Islam, defies logic and reason. Projecting that absurd excuse is irresponsible and contributes to the cycle of violence. It justifies the dogmas that depend on violence, intolerance and absolutism. It justifies bank robbers who rob banks because they can’t get interest free loans without collateral or visible means of support! To in any way justify this wanton violence as a legitimate political tool for balancing the scales of justice, is a insult to the victims of that violence. And professing far fetched involutions of history and fact, and seeking to rationalize a causal chain of absolutism and intolerance, solely because there are sympathetic listeners who are equally dogmatic, and envious, seem to me to simply hope to cash in on the numbers game, and make a living out of explaining the chaos and pathology of these doctrines of hatred.

If you are right Muslims are natural and incorrigible scape-goaters of Jews, then it looks like you guys are in trouble. What is your long term plan over there? Looks like you are all going to get killed!

“…hysterical Boston dragnet…” Can you be serious? A mass killer on the loose with no moral compunction other than to kill, at random, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. What if you were the next person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes “professors” of great repute (earned or otherwise) go off the beaten track. Professor, your approach reminds me of a series of rather interesting letters exchanged between Chiam Weizmann and Albert Einstein in the 1930’s. Albert to Chiam: “…Chiam,why don’t we forget about politics and just meet with the Arabs, person to person? We can make peace and share brotherly love and the world will be a wonderful place…”. Chiam to Albert: “…Albert, the Grand Mufti has issued a fatwa saying that it is the duty of all Arabs to kill all Jews no matter where they are or who they are. The Arabs follow what their leaders tell them. Albert, what part of ‘…kill all Jews…’ is it that you seem not to understand?”

What on earth is the Saudi world wide funding of madrasas all about? The current Arab leadership still follows the fatwa – Arafat told us that in Arabic (the Mufti being one of his heros) and so does Morisi. The Islamists tell us that in their TV productions. What do these folks teach their little kids in their schools? Do you really think you can talk to these people from a “Western” point of view? Even Bandar couldn’t believe what Arafat turned down in 2000-2002 when Barack offered Arafat almost everything he asked for and Arafat never even came back with a counter proposal. Arafat just said “no” and left. Clinton called Arafat liar. And I could go on and on with current examples, as you well know, which demonstrate the real goal of these folks.

What do you really think of Arabia only for the Arabs; Jordan established with the specific exclusion of all Jews; Palestine going to the sea and no Jews allowed; Lybia excluding all Jews; a proposal in the new Iraqi Constitution which excludes Jews from citizenship: the right return for 700,000 Arabs but no right of return for the 850,000 Jews thrown out of muslim countries during that same period of time? Is this being “even handed” or just both hands out to take, but giving nothing in return.

When death (getting you 75 virgins) is more important than life; when your religious book says that it is is O.K. to lie to a non-believer so long as it furthers the cause of Islam and specifically refers to the killing of Christians and Jews (you can start with Ch. 2 of that book), and this forms a base from which you operate, only a fool would turn his back on you.

Richard (Albert), open up your eyes and stop trying to place yourself (and me) in harms way (or perhaps there is some Freudian issue you have over which you have no control). “..hysterical Boston dragnet…” my tuchass.

Happy 80th birthday. A wise man knows when it is time to stop trying to be what he thought he might once have been. You should consider stopping (think “…hysterical Boston dragnet…” and some of the other non-sense which you mixed into some things which are, in fact, correct – it seems that you have arrived at that stage in life where you cant tell the difference).

It is truly amazing how isolated you are from the human condition. If the parents, friends and relatives of those 4 who died are not experiencing enough grief, you throw salt on the wounds that will forever be attached to their lives. It is readily apparent from your years in the ivory towers of academia that you have lost the ability for empathy. Your commentary is a direct reflection of how far we have fallen from common decency in the wake of a tragedy. The ability to “bite ones tongue” has no age attached to it, something you apparently were never taught as a child. The only saving grace for those who are grieving is that you have already exceeded the average life span of a male.

When did Richard Falk pass his last medical exam? Some people start showing serious neurological problems after 80. Such problems limit the individual’s capacity to understand his own acts. As a neurologist I think that a complete medical check-up is very much indicated in the case of Richard Falk and depending on the results his retirement should be decided and implemented forthwith by his next of keen. Sorry, but we each age differently.

I could spend hours on a reply that spoke of the reasons you and your opinions are full of shit but that would, indeed beq a waste of my efforts. People who decide the USA is reaping what it has sown obviously have not been paying attention. You are like that noisy nose picking, booger eater who is too busy thinking about what he is going to blurt out next all the while paying no attention to what others are saying. Is our country flawed? You betcha. If you don’t like living here please take your family to Iran where your wife can be stoned to death if she is raped.

With the hatred that you espouse both for the U.S. and Israel, exactly who do you think should take the lead role for peacemaker in this world? Think about that in your Santa Barbara luxury home. Racism is a two way street and you’re standing on one side of it. What a hypocrite!!

April 23, 2013 | Statement by Erin Pelton, United States Mission to the United Nations Spokesperson, on Commentary by UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories Richard Falk:

“The United States completely rejects the provocative and offensive commentary by Mr. Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, regarding the recent terrorist attack in Boston, Massachusetts. The United States has previously called for Mr. Falk’s resignation for his numerous outrageous statements, and these comments underscore once more the absurdity of his service as a UN Special Rapporteur.” http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/207893.htm

Richard, is the spokeslady of US Ambassador Rice calling for dismissal from your unpaid post as an independent Special Rapporteur?

I hope at least this time – as you stated in 2011 similar incident – that US Mission to the United Nation made effort to contact you to seek clarification of your remarks on these issues not connected with your UN role prior to making their insulting criticisms damaging to your reputation. We would think that as a representative of the UN and a citizen of the United States, you are at least entitled to this minimal courtesy and that whatever criticisms are made are based on what you said rather than manifestly inflammatory letter written by the Human Rights Watch.

I cannot agree with you more! Blaming Israel for the psychopathic actions of two radical Muslims in Boston is – of course, nonsensical and possibly borderline psychopathic. Also, I strongly disagree with Professor Falk’s opinion “The culture needs mirrors more than drones if it is to move forward.” I believe that we need more drones killing radical Muslims than we need anything else. Luckily, President Obama has a similar opinion – or at least he has authorized more drone-mediated killings of radical Muslims than any other leader I know about.

Dear Mr. Falk (aka “assimilationist Jew with a virtual denial of even the ethnic side of Jewishness,” as you described your family once):

How wonderful it must be to be of a certain age where you are regarded as learned, and liberal-elitist sycophants can email you and co-sign every line of bullshit you put up here on your blog.

If we were living in Warsaw together in 1943, I’d nominate you to be the head of the Judenrat with George Soros. Not only does it appear you hate being Jewish, but you also hate being American, hate being free and perhaps what this truly signifies is you hate being you.

That’s actually okay and you make it easy to do. Just don’t take your rage out on innocent Americans; it’s actually more toxic and disturbing than anything the Tsarnaev brothers have accomplished in the past week.

Have you thought about relocating to a Muslim country? Maybe you’d feel more at home in Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Yemen. Or Egypt. I wonder if you believe you’d have the same freedoms to write the pontifi-defecation in those countries as you do here?
I wonder also if you’d feel the same way had you or members or your own family been victims in the bombings?

Tell me, oh learned one, when was the last time you ventured somewhere less than comfortable to glean your unfathomable, first hand, in the rough wealth of knowledge on how “the rest of the world” sees America? I fail to see a Princeton professor doggedly going out into the big, bad, wide world to gather such pearls of wisdom. I do see, however, that you may be beguiled by unscrupulous folks in order to stroke your own pride and advance their agenda; it happens so with folks who think much of themselves and rely too much on their own counsel.
But please Sir, tell me from whence do you draw your misguided summations of world events and views? Surely not from simple folk, but from the crafty, disingenuous who have used you as they would a bomb on a school bus, or perhaps in a crowded city market full of innocents.

It is a terrible thing what happened in Boston. People were hurt and killed. I have Faith in God that He will use all according to his eternal and everlasting purpose.

But also, people in US are believers…can we rest on that? Sure, even satan and his angels believe, and are in a frozen state of rebellion (rebellion and no obedience). Now, this is kind of systematic theology (just that part–or in part). Awww…whatever! (Frozen state of rebellion is to a issue of relevant).

To me the Boston Bombings (that took place recently) look as things of time-pass (geographical positioning/activity of similar). And it looks like a judgment according to the Gospel (the judgment of the Church by the Law of the Spirit) words spoken by prophets in the Church in/by the Spirit filled Church judgment—in time-pass… (Can you follow my thought?)
People (city/entire Geographically Positioned Area) can be judged by all everlasting covenants; it depends under which they are. There is a significant judgment during the Church age by the prophets in/by the Church Charismatic-valid. The Language of the Spirit is a mystery and acts as a mystery, serving the Gospel according, and as a double egged sword that comes froth by the breath of God’s Spirit (now this is a mystery, if you do not understand it…why should I be willing to explain it?). It may be irrelevant to thee.
Now, I am Church-Charismatic, and you may not regard me as paranoid and delusional—still you may do that, and I am not responsible to your consequences…
In my mind I am very sharp, and by Spirit of God very accurate. (I am ordained…how about that?). Now, I am Roman Catholic and a girl (see pink with Chatolics…ugh…ugh?)—the ordination was by church disorder evangelical-carismatic invalid…and an abomination toward God. (Say…Huh…?) But look and see…Do I teach by Scripture? Would God blessed me…most likely He would curse me…I am a girl!?
Now that would be a mockery… Not mockery? Still, I can do systematic theology (now this is a mockery toward me, sincerely…why should I mock me?). Would be appropriate to boast? (We say, “yes, sure”).
There are things of the Church that mere man does not understand…things like Boston Bombing that happened because there is “no repentance from generational sins.” We know things that are written…in part and in part we prophesy, and in part we see. Look and see what is done to people by obnoxious policies—or rule setting?

SEE!!! I write softly, I am a bored introvert.

UN WATCH has obnoxious policies—or rule setting, as well? (Say “hen”). “We (I) never had a real job…I lack valid….
valid competence (s)…emotional intelligence”. That place looks like hen house in need to get rid of “hen bugs” (I am referring to that spiritual reality/realm there) Look and see…they really do not have a job…a valid job. (How can they…They are counter-effective to that which world really needs. Can they see their work, in accordance to its validity? I am tasting hazelnuts…why…swish chocolate nearby? Nonsense, right…We say, “that anger stops.”

Our Beloved Mr. Falk is accurate (from the perspective that he has had). Incredibly accurate, when you consider all things systematically and/or generationally, with deep and insightful thinking…do that, practice that, practice these things: “deep and insightful thinking” you may be amazed of illumination by Spirit? Would you have the Spirit of God…or not?
There are things of the Church that mere man does not understand…like, like…yes, education is of value, some value…of limited value—or no value at all..
Some of PhD’s double, triple PhD’s…whatever…here I mock the wise in their eyes.
But a monk would understand?
What kind of monk? (Now I am a girl that picks on a monk).
A punk?
I would be not kidding? A story…aaaah (craze and haze?)

Thank You Richard, for bringing some simple common sense, to the commentary on the Boston Bombings. I am saddened and at a loss, as to why so many in my Nation, cannot see the connection, of a U.S. policy of wars based on lies, the brutal mass killings as a result of this policy. A policy of secret covert interferance in other Nations, to support “our interests” (financial exloitation?) and killings and support of others doing those killings, all over the planet for decades. Blindness and denial of this reality is a big part of tghe reason we were attacked. I am amazed there have not been more attacts on my country from this brutal insane illegal policy.

I have a much greater understanding of both what happened to the quality of university education in the US, and precisely why the UN has completed its transformation into a psychologically deviant organization hell bent on reenacting the League of Nations.

I’ll be kind and attribute your recent inchoate screeds on undiagnosed Alzheimer’s. For the earlier rantings, I’ll have to conclude that you rolled the dice and cast your lot with the most violent people ever to populate a region. It makes sense in a way–if they win, you hope to be spared the beheading planned for the rest of us.

I am well past the point of irritation at distortions, misquotes and lies to attack Richard Falk. I am actually amused. Again, there is only a small point of vital detail that is missing in this latest offensive against him. Richard has quoted the term “retribution” from a caller to a radio program. But these are simply minor conveniences for some, who will never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

Rights council official insinuates the “darkly glamorized” Boston bombings happened because of Obama’s love-letter to Israel.
UN Human Rights Council’s Palestine monitor Richard Falk has drawn connections between the recent Boston Marathon bombing and US President Barack Obama’s compliance with the State of Israel.

In an article titled “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders” in the online Foreign Policy Journal, Falk, a self-proclaimed advocate of 9/11 conspiracy theories, implies the Boston attack was largely due to Obama’s recent trip to Israel.

“The secretary-general is hopeful that special rapporteurs such as Mr Falk, understand that while they have independent status, their public comments can undermine the credibility and the work of the United Nations.” — UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (in reaction to this article)

wow, Richard, you are getting tons of press about this essay! You are really making a difference. I looked at many of the articles documenting the usual smear and obfuscation campaign they are waging, and I must say I was gratified to see that the comments are running 95% pro-Falk and the five percent who don’t rise to his defense are obvious partisan Zionists (see Haaretz and The Forward). Its also interesting that the preponderance of comments supporting Richard are well-reasoned and calm, but the tiny group of detractors use all kinds of shrill invective and profanity. Could it be the tables be turning on the Zionist criminals? How many more suicide actions on american soil will it take before Americans start reconsidering their blithe support of Israel?
,
I have held off on chiming in on this post because I was waiting to hear what the captured terrorist will say. If he turns out to be articulate and discusses hatred of zionists as their main motivation, and if people start realizing that there are millions of other potentially violent disaffected muslims living in America, maybe Americans will start recalculating the costs of siding with these world-class villains.

By the way, have you noticed that the new favorite tactic of the Israeli’s, is to hose down Palestinians with Jewish feces (cutely nicknamed “skunk”), or to drop Jewish feces on the heads of arabs walking down the streets of Hebron, or settlers direct their raw sewage onto the agricultural fields of Palestinians. What is this infantile shit fixation among Zionists, and what would Freud have to say about it? No wonder muslims are trying to destroy America, the funding source for all of the Israeli wonderful new technology for killing and degrading the inhabitants of the country they are busily stealing.

Richard, keep going, we are getting there. World opinion has come around, now it is just the Americans who must be educated. Strap yourself in, it is going to get a little bumpy….
Walker

I have it from secret Zionist Conspiracy documents that at least half of the $3 billion the U.S. allocates to Israel each year is earmarked for the purchase of feces, and that the F30 fighter planes being prepared for shipment to Israel are fitted to carry missiles armed with the stuff.

How right you are in saying that Fecesgate so enraged two American immigrant young men from Chechnya that they were driven to murder and maim 200 innocent men, women and children at a sporting event just to get even.

Btw, to my knowledge, you are the first person who doesn’t mourn the Boston murders as a human tragedy but celebrates them as an opportunity for Prof. Falk to kick some p.r. butt on the Jihadi websites you frequent. (And lest there be any misunderstanding, I want to be clear that while I strongly disagree with Prof. Falk’s post, I’m very sure that he didn’t write it for this purpose.)

wow. Hitler could not have said it better. No – Goebbels was more your style.
Do you close your eyes when you shave?
How can you look at yourself when you lie and hate like that?
So Americans should cave in and do whatever terrorists want us to do – so won’t that encourage even more terrorism?
Your hatred and bigotry are truly vile.

Ira, do you think it is a deliberate strategy to use feces as a weapon? I am pretty sure it is. After all, what better way to drive people from their homes without actually murdering them? What swine they are!

1. I commend Dr. Falk for raising the role of the atomic bomb in perceiving how America has not only resorting to violence and killing as an option, but how the atomic bomb has stifled the discussion we should be having on military policy. Historian Garry Wills is quite good on this relationship (Fora on Bomb Power http://bit.ly/aIrdPr) as is Oliver Stone in his recent book, and television series on “The Untold History of the United States”.

2. For a look at how violence is perceived from the eyes of those against the US uses power, in terms of inciting revenge, try the video of Farea al-Muslimi recent testimony.

“Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time. What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America in Wessab.” http://bit.ly/12gNEUO
\
3.There is also much evidence that violence is not the natural state of man, and that the US Army has under taken much effort to get US citizens to accept violence, and in particular to train people to kill overcome their aversion to killing others. Former Ranger, and West Point Psychology Professor Dave Grossman has written much on how television, video, and gaming has been used to create our acceptance of “violence as normal and acceptable.” http://bit.ly/ZkUYyU

Meanwhile back on planet Earth the entire internet has woken to the self evident false flag nature attack of the Boston Bombing. The real hasty back pedalling has been the corporate media in response to a flurry of photographic and video evidence that contradicts every single important data point. But don’t take my word for it. Go to Google Trends and put in the world “false flag” and get the concrete data point which is literally off the charts. Then Google around in places where money is unconnected to the reporting and one is closer to reality. The awakening is indeed taking place. Let us hope it isn’t too late.

Unfortunately, what we see again here is another attempt to justify attacks against the USA based on its supposed opposition to the Middle East and Islamic World. While implicitly justifying the atrocities of Boston, you imply that such attacks can, should, and indeed, will continue as long as “the US doesn’t do exactly what Islamic extremist fundamentalists demand of it”. This is both a poor analysis, and one that belittles all the positive attributes espoused by the US and its current administration.

While I am most certainly not a fan of many US foreign policy paradigms that have been expounded upon the world over the past century, I believe that to inextricably link US foreign policy (and more specifically, its alliance with Israel) to a justification for retaliatory attacks against civilian targets in the USA, is a mind-blowing approach on your behalf. A country that adopted refugees from Dagestan, Chechnya, Kzrgyzstan, or wherever, educated them at no cost to themselves, and provided them with the opportunity to “make something of themselves”, most certainly does not deserve to be punished in such a way – or does it? You seem to think so. Surely the indoctrination suffered by the two bombers at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist radicals is something that should be addressed before any blame is attributed to US foreign policy paradigms. Acting (as they supposedly did) in the name of Allah to punish “non-believers”, is surely nothing more than a medieval, stone-age vision, that most of Europe managed to extricate itself following the Enlightenment. Indeed, while both Christianity and Islam are forceful religions that demand all peoples to follow one G’d and one G’d only, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can most certainly not be described as ones attempting to enforce religious fervour upon the local populations. Why is it that you justify such atrocities in the name of religion over ones that attempt to secure energy and regional security interests? What criteria are you attempting to use here? I simply cannot see it, and for the life of me cannot understand it.

While your critiques of the heavy-handedness of the Israeli regime are well-documented, you fail to apply the same analyses to Israel. Surely if you can justify Islamic radicals blowing up bombs at the finish line of a marathon for the purposes of making a stand against Western presence in the Middle East and in the “Holy Land”, then you can justify bombing campaigns upon civilian populations in Gaza for the purpose of “security” for Israel.

Your circular arguments unfortunately make little sense, and do little to further what your position as Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council. I think you have got much of what you espouse wrong, and I find your opinions and views on these matters extremely deconstructive and confrontational.

Your usual work and comments are offensive and wacky enough, but really to justify the the Boston Bombings? Sickening. What can you expect from someone who has supported the Ayatollah Khomeini, is always beyond legitimate criticism of Israel into actual rabid anti-Semitism, and who hates America (also beyond legit government criticism)? And of course, the circus of racists and haters, the UN, allows you a perch from where to spew your poison.

You are disgusting, don’t call yourself an American. Oh and by the way, PLEASE don’t call yourself a Jew- not by any means, religion, ethnicity, whatever. I don’t want you to even mention you had Jewish parents, you are an embarrassment to Jews and you must be a shame to your parents’ memory. Stop using your background as a playing card/tool to say whatever you like. For us you are the same as a jihadi, neo-nazi, etc. We don’t want anything to do with you, so as far as we are concerned- you are NOT one of us. We don’t want to see you at any synagogue, event, holiday dinner, anything. When you die (hopefully very soon) you will pass from life still removed from “your people”, and I hope no one gives you Jewish burial, because the presence of your body would be a desecration of that cemetery. And no, I’m not even a religious guy, I just can’t stand people like you. The word in Hebrew is BOGED. You are a BOGED BEN ZONA.

What a shame to degrade another human being. When someone speaks the truth, or has an opinion he/she gets degraded. Does he not have the right to speak his mind and have the freedom of speech? Or freedom of speech goes only for the few like yourself? If you don’t agree with his views and dislike people like him, you don’t have to go as far as wishing for heath death. Is this what you have learned as a Jew?

Hey Abdul – way to speak fascistic and racist thoughts; and then claim the other party is denying your right to speak. Nobody is denying your right to speak. We are just pointing out how you spew insipid; vile and hateful ideas. Then you go antisemetic. You are clueless as well; as any rational person will see how demented you are.

You totally miss the point. When someone recite and wishes death for Richard Falk, that is not the teaching of Jewish people. If Ectabana claims to be Jewish, then he does not speak for all Jews. In addition, you missed my point of the right to speak? I never mentioned that I was denied the right to speak. I was pointing out that Richard has the rights to speak his mind just like Ectabana had that right too. He did not have to recite death to Richard because he did not like his views. As far as racist thoughts and antisemetic comments, you are the one who’s making such a claim. where did you see that I made hateful claims or mentioned racist or antisemetic hate? Of course, you guys (people like you that is) always want to twist the truth and use the race card of antisemetic rhetoric. The game of antisemetic rhetoric has been played for a long time by people like you and its time to end this nonsense.

Dear Abdul: It ‘amuses’ me no end to read all these attacks on Professor Falk. It’s so sad that people debase themselves by writing pieces like Pasargad’s. But as Kierkegaard said: “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” No well-educated person would wish somebody’s death.

This fellow has told us everything we need to know. The jewish religion is nothing but a vast, loathesome ponzi scheme of shaming and coercion, whose practitioners will eventually be forced to renounce it, just as the historical template demands. Then we will have the Masada-inspired denoument (probably nuclear), then we will try rebuilding again, if there is anything left. Like charlie brown and the football, we always cheerfully look the other way as these components are put into place, and then react with surprise when the depth of their venality is exposed.

Thank you for voicing what precious few Americans even consider pondering.

Last year, I gained a complete understanding of our paradigm, of how poisionous capitalism and our brand of nationalism is. I now recognize that America has, let’s say, failed to learn the lessons learned by Germany after Hitler’s use of propaganda whipped a nation’s people into a murderous frenzy. Actually, that isn’t correct. Elements within America, especially those concerned with financial position, have learned quite well what mistakes German propagandists and policy makers made, and have corrected them. No longer do we hide our transgressions from view; we simply tell the world that they are justified through various policy “adjustments” and most toxic propaganda.

Americans are the result of our lack of real education, and actions of propagandists, most of whom even fail to recognize the work that they do (in advertising of course) is so destructive to our society.

As for me, I am one of the precious few who sees America as an aggressive, imperialistic, and some could say evil nation. As such, I am leaving. I have tried to bring about change here, but none will hear me and in fact they have made me a political prisoner for my views.

Sadly, not even your organization would hear my pleas several years ago when I asked for refugee status.

If you need someone to testify, to explain to the UN and the rest of the world America’s position and how dangerous it is; I would be most happy to do so, but would of course need assistance to do so – America’s treatment of me has left me homeless, disabled, and scared to death of my own country’s political and legal authorities.

As an American, I wish to thank you for your words and for delivering them from your station.

America needs to hear what you have said. There are only precious few of us here in America who offer such criticisms; but we are at best ignored as kooks, and at worst, myself included, treated as political prisoners in a very real way, even as our fellows bear witness to it, and brush it off as deserved for the views forwarded.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the response by the American media. Sadly, I must predict; given my in-depth understanding of American politics and society; that our media will win out and you will be portrayed, successfully, as nothing more than a kook, a defacto enemy of the state.

Nevertheless, I hope your words strike a chord in the hearts and minds of those who have begun to doubt the sincerity and loyalty of our leadership to the people who afford them the power they have.

I have a suggestion..the next time the world needs “canaries” I’m handing you to them in a copper cage!..you are an embarassment to the American People, their eductation system and anything else you pretend to representing…shame on you!

Dear Professor Falk,
It is rare that someone with a reputation to lose puts it on the line to speak out on unpopular subjects. I am in awe of your courage and integrity in addressing critically important issues. If our religious leaders — who should be opening their eyes to what is going on and should feel a moral imperative to speak out — showed a fraction of your courage, our country would not be facing at least some of its current disasters.

Barely mastering sentences for a comment on a perfectly-stylistically-written article airing very roots supposed of a recent Boston Marathon massacre fills that this tragedy, as understood from a publication, is a next event tragic the US self-inflicted on themselves by steadily maintaining friendship with Israel.

Not exaggerating the earthy motives of brothers-murderers – “oppressed Dagestan-Chechen refugees”-turned-US-citizens might simplify a reason of terrorist act they planned and executed-a copycat of TV-broadcasted frequent Islamic extremism worldwide, an act of their hatred towards surrounding not reflecting their personal expectations of.

From such a mere pragmatic plain approach Dow Johns comprehend and share in common, suggestions of how to prevent future Islamist outbreaks on American (and outside to-date-Islam-governed world in general) soil could much gladly be appreciated than a sky-reaching list of American sins some “humanists” imagined regularly.

I wanted to commend you on your views and your courage to write such an article. While Israel and the U.S. may not take the direct blame for the atrocity committed in Boston, I do blame the U.S. for our foreign policies and blame Israel for its atrocities committed for over 60 years. The media here and the government, always backs Israel no matter what and Israel is always first, why? Are the Palestinians not worthy of having their freedom? Do they not deserve like everyone else to live in dignity in their own land? Are they second class citizens and slaves for the Jews? It boggles the mind to hear over and over that the Jews are the “chosen people” and God promised the land to the Jews? What about the history of the region? Where did the Philistines come from, out of space? The Philistines are indigenous to the region, they did not come from Europe and America like most Jews. How can we live in piece if we don’t give the Palestinians the rights to live in harmony like all other nations? The root cause of Islamic terror goes back to the occupation of Arab lands and the suffering of Moslems around the world from the imperial powers. In the 80’s we helped the Mojahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Osama Bin Ladin was one of the fighters against the Soviet Union who used American weapons. When he left Afghanistan, he used his power and money to recruit fighters by using the Palestinians struggle as a “point of sale” for his recruitment. Then he turned on the U.S. and the west. The Middle East has been boiling for many years because of the Israelis occupation of Arab lands. To top it off, the U.S. invaded Iraq based on a lie and the rest is history of the atrocities committed by the military. Not to mention Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Yemen, and many more Moslem countries. In essence, we are creating more Islamic terror and Jihad for many years to come. If we truly want piece for our children’s , then we must start by treating the sickness and the root cause which is the Israeli occupation. Shalom, piece and Salam! After all, aren’t we the children of Ibrahim? If you believe we are, then why not live in piece among one another and be good neighbors 🙂

If you blame Islam and Koran for all atrocities around the world, you know nothing about the Koran and Islam. The problem the world faces is ignorant people like yourself who make comments with out knowing what they are talking about. There is a saying, “know who before you stand”.

The last thing I want to do is argue with you, but at least learn your own history. The Philistines were a Sea People who arrived from the west (possibly Italy) in around 1200 B.C., invading Egypt and settling on the coast as far north as Ashdod. They vanish from history in around 600 B.C, after the Babylonian invasion, and have absolutely nothing to with the Arabs who came out of the Arabian Desert in the 7th century A.D. and conquered the Middle East.

I have to agree with you, we are not hear to argue. You are right ,the Philistines has nothing to do with Arabs. However, they settled in that region around 1175 BC. To say they vanished from history, does that means that the philistines no longer in existence and they have no rights in that region? We both agree that they have been in that region for over 3000 years. They are mixed among Jews, Canaanites, Mesopotamians, and Arabs. Therefore, they have every rights to that land just like Jews. My point is that we cannot support the claim that only Jews have the right to the holy land and God made his choice only for the Jews. It’s like saying Indians in America has no rights to the land because they vanished from history.

Actually they were deported by the Babylonians but if any of them remained and intermarried they lost their national identity and certainly no one identifying himself as a Philistine today is making any claims to sovereignty in the Land of Israel. The claim is being made by descendants of the Arabs who came out of the desert in the 7th century, but more precisely by the Arabs who migrated to the Land of Israel in the 19th and early 20th century. It is they who rejected the partition plan, not the Jews, and it is they who refuse to return to the negotiating table and reach an agreement.

On the contrary, those who left are still identified as philistines which is the Arabic word for Palestine. In any event, what difference does it make. The Arabs are part of that culture and its roots go back over a 1000 years. And when you say the Arabs refused the partition, that is correct. How can anyone agree to a partition under the division of the colonial powers by the British and French forces that divided the whole Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. To continue blaming the Arabs for not returning to the negotiating table, is absurd. How can anyone negotiate under the gun? While you are surrounded by walls, and live in a prison like, while continuing to build settlements, and while continuing to occupy Arab lands. If Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors, stop the settlements, get out of the occupied land, and then you will have your peace. Again, my argument is based on the suffering of the Palestinians and for that matter the Jews as well. It is time to end the double standards the west holds towards Israel. The U.S. cannot negotiate a peace while you take sides.

Well, Abdul, as I said, I’m not going to argue with you. The only way the Palestinians are going to get a state is by negotiating one with Israel, whether they like the circumstances or not. That is the reality. Everyone , including Abu Mazen, understands what the final settlement will look like, so in effect he is denying his people a national life.

The Tsarnaev family are ethnic Chechens from Russia, which has persecuted and discrimated against that ethnicity for decades if not hundreds of years. They emigrated to the US, where they found work, friendly and unprejudiced neighbors, social service support, and free or government-subsidized education.

Now, perhaps what you’re arguing is that all Muslims are alike and no American should ever trust a Muslim under any circumstances. Is that what you’re arguing? It sure seems like it.

Dear Richard Falk, now that I’ve found you, I’m going to read more of your material.
It’s really wonderful to find someone famous and successful who will reveal the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Carol Rae Bradford

How about that? The Jerusalem Post deleted the link and removed the story altogether. My comment may have been too much for some to adsorb. They hate the great Prophet Isaiah as much as they hate the Professor.

Spot on Richard. The truth hurts the psychopathic folks who think they have a right to run (ruin) our world; they feel a need to lash out and of course always have to have the last word. You probably know that there are many, many times more people like me who know that what you say is !00% true.
Thanks, and much respect.
Steve

Dear Dr. Falk,
As I always think after reading your articles, you´re a very few ones in US to tell the truth with courage.
I hope your blog will last a long time as a phare helping those in distress needing light.

Prof Falk reminds me of Jean Paul sartre that in spite of leading a world wide school of though and being the “darling” of Stalin, when faced with the horrific crimes of the communists in the Soviet Union, refused to believe it and even defended Stalin till his death. The reason, very simple, an intellectual that “compromises” his mind to one side against the other is deified by those he favors and at some point believes that he is infallible and therefore does not need to accept error or reconsider any position. Under those premises, Falk’s apology of terrorism makes him an accomplice in crimes against humanity, that same humanity that as an intellectual he is supposed to serve. The venom that as a norm comes out of his mouth is letal ammunition in the hands of killers like the Boston bombers. By paying lip service to cold blooded murderes he has is hands tainted with the blood of innocents.

Professor, you call people “belligerent” with not even the slightest example for support. If you are going to define people with insulting adjectives you should share with the readers how you arrived at it.

and btw, the US is revered throughout the world and it baffles me why some people try to prove or propangandize the opposite. Sure we will get attacked here and there but we shouldn’t be assuming that our politics are wrong.

Lastly, Obama’s trip to Israel was to upstage Netanyahu by trying to turn the college students against him.I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on that.

Fred, the reality is Abu Mazen is not denying his people life. It is Isreal who is denying life for the Palestinians. It is true that both sides have to negotiate a final peace treaty, however Isreal is also occupying Syrian and Lebanese land. Therefore, the only way for Israel to exist in peace is to withdraw from the occupied territories. Isreal cannot coexsits among millions of Arabs all around. It is true they lasted 60 years with the help of western power, and may last for another 60 or 100 years, but at the end Isreal will be sowlloed by its Arab neighbors. It would be in Isreal’s interest to think for the long run for its survival with the Arabs. It cannot continue by counting on the west infinintly. As you know, empires come and go. For Isreal to survive in the long run, it must stop all settlements, withdraw from occupied land and tear down the wall. Mr. Bibi Natunyhoo, “tear down this wall”

Mr. Kayali, I understand the Arabic Falastin is a phonetic copy of the word coined by Hadrian during the Jewish uprising in the year 135.CE. I also recall that Arabs in the area refused to refer to themselves as Palestinians until Arafat could homogenize their marketing by using that identity-tag, i.e. ‘Palestinians.’ In terms of accepting the partition, Iraq, S. Arabia, Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries accept mandated borders, I don’t quite understand the argument that local Arabs cannot in ‘Trans-Jordan.’ And, when you refer to negotiating ‘under the gun,’ are you perhaps referring the hail of unguided missiles hurled at the Israeli population from North and South, and other acts of terror, perpetrated behind human shields of women and children within school yards, and residential districts? Btw, those are acts considered as War Crimes under the Geneva Convention. Oddly, as there are nearly a million Arabs living in Israel, under the protection of law, free to practice their religion and criticize Israel, and even sit in the Knesset, I just don’t see the logic in forbidding Jews or Israeli’s from purchasing land and living throughout the Land of Israel – exactly as Muslims and Arabs may. Look, there is a spiral of violence and hatred there. It can only be properly addressed and resolved at a negotiating table – however difficult that may be. Arab poverty is not exclusive to that area. Arabs are impoverished throughout the Middle East and Africa, and far more so by their Sheiks and oil Princes than by Jews. The Arabs of Palestine have been living on the dole of the UN in so-called ‘refugee camps’ for 60 years – the same age as Tel Aviv. The fact that they haven’t created real infrastructure, hospitals, roads, schools (and teaching kids useful things other than hatred of Jews and promoting the militant murderers of tomorrow) in the West Bank and Gaza is certainly not due to Israeli oppression. Their greatest wource of jobs and funding is from Israel. Their poverty and ignorance is seemingly due to an attitude of self-victimization and well, laziness. Arabs have always lived in squalor and seem to accept it as God given. The outrageous oppression of women essentially means that half the resources, intelligence and sensitivity of the population is stifled and repressed. What country could progress and wealthy like that? Arabs have to stop living in denial. They have to stop being envious of the 200+ Nobel prizes won by Jews (outnumbered 100 to 1 on the planet earth) as opposed to the circa 10 Nobel prizes won by Muslims. The Islamic world needs less hateful and dogmatic clerics – they need men of peace to guide them. And, I believe, the Islamic world needs a renaissance of expression, to again blossom in a richness of ideas and concepts as they did 1000 years ago. It’s a simple as that. And btw, the West hates Israel. Jews have been systemically persecuted in Europe since 314 CE by law, and far before that in deed. The West is not pro-Israel, and far from it. It is pro-freedom, pro-expression, pro-democracy, pro-choice, pro-free elections, pro-information and free trade, pro-equality, and pro-progress. Islam and Arabs seemingly have some ontological anxiety regarding freedom. An English women in an Egyptian university is being fired now for opening a discussion about the relations between Muslims and Christians in her classroom, as a language exercise. Arabs are oppressive and envious. They seem to hate everyone. and themselves, while on an individual basis, being the most humble and guest free people I know, Its time to turn a page and stop denying and being so afraid. It’s time to sit down and stop the bloodshed. If a mandate were given to 20 top global business men, bent on creating infrastructure, trade, jobs and investment to the region, this entire matter could be resolved in a few years. But, unfortunately it’s not. The next best thing is to sit down without pre-conditions or recalcitrance and work out an equatable framework for viability and security – for Israel and a non-extremist, democratic Palestine.

Yes, that is true. The Romans took the name Palaestina from the old Philistines to rename the province of Judea and obscure its Jewish connection. The name Palestine was only revived under the British Mandate. Arabs living in the Land of Israel did not think of themselves as Palestinians living in Palestine but as Arabs living in Southern Syria.

Mr. Kayali, instead of theoretical assumptions, let’s look at actual cases of where Israel retreated from lands it held – whether we consider these as ‘occupied’ or not. In so, we test the viability of what you claim, i.e. there will be peace-for land given to the Arab Palestinians. In both Southern Lebanon and Gaza w have actual examples of Israel retreating from lands it controlled. They did so for various reasons but for sure, to test and determine what effect it would produce, as well. S. Lebanon today is no longer a buffer zone. It’s an extremist Hezbolla staging ground for rocket fire and repeated attacks against Israel. 2 small and costly incursions were fought there to protect Israels northern border. Gaza, in particular, is a case you should study more carefully. There were tens of viable farms and businesses there, which Palestinians could have simply overtaken – either in co-operation with Israeli’s who ran them previously, or not. Either way, after the Israeli’s were forced to re-locate and abandon their homes and businesses – and many still are not truly settled in Israel as yet – the area, those homes, synagogues and business alike, have all but been destroyed. Gaza has become overtaken by an extremist and belligerent ‘terrorist regime’ (listed as such by the US and EU) and is as well a staging ground for thousands of rockets pouring into S. Israel. There too, costly defensive incursions have been made by Israeli to defend and secure it’s southern border. In a gesture of peace and an attempt to actual test the very theory you seem to adhere to, Israel gave up land and retreated to agreed upon borders. The result was even more aggression. Again, it’s important to stop denying and rewriting history in the misdirected hope of expressing ethnic or religious loyalties you and others might feel. Of course Israel was and must be severe in it’s responses to attacks on it’s borders. Was Turkey passive, allowing Syria to bomb it’s border towns a month ago? It’s response was immediate and severe towards their fellow Muslim brothers in Syria. Hundreds upon hundreds of rockets were fired into civilian Israeli towns before the Israeli’s reacted and the hammer fell. Would you be so tolerant toward a neighbor shooting at your house? No, the claim of ‘land-for-peace,’ is without basis in reality. The extremist regimes around Israeli regards withdrawal as weakness, and encouragement toward further attack. Unilateral withdrawal was therefore a mistake in both cases – albeit with good and practical intentions. A variety of terms & conditions should have been put in place beforehand, under the protection and safeguard of the UN-EU-US troika, as Palestinian leadership has repeatedly proven itself incapable, unwilling, or simply not serious in efforts toward a real peace, and evidence of that is clear since the Oslo Accords of 1993.

Rabbi Ira, being a Rabbi, surely you must know the only “explicit” link in the thought, “Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return” and Israel is the fact Job 4 from the Jewish Scripture records the same dynamic: “[8] Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.”

This dynamic in the Creation of God is affirmed in the Christian New Testament by Saul/Paul, the Jewish Pharisee who was on a search and destroy mission to eliminate the new Christian/Messianic Sect that arose out of Judaism.

Galatians 6 [7] Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.

“Aside from the dangers and unacceptability of promiscuous wars, there are other serious deficiencies in how the United States sees itself in the world. We should be worried by the taboo at this moment of 24/7 self-congratulatory commentary imposed on any type of self-scrutiny by either the political leadership or the mainstream media. Unlike the aftermath of 9/11, there are a few hopeful signs of awakening to this one-eyed vision on the part of the citizenry.”

Reading Professor Falk’s essay over and over again, the breath and dept of his thinking and perception jumps out to me in ways I did not see at first.

The Professor is telling it like it is. There is an “Industry” at work here. Fifty years ago, the last real Commander-In-Chief, General-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned against “the people” letting this “Industry” grow.

The people have been asleep or cheaply distracted, instead of being vigilant and aware of what POWER does in our names. The world is now “reaping” the consequences for ignoring the wise council of one who was in the position to know.

“Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage — balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Professor Falk and General-President Eisenhower are on the same wavelength!

as always, we can count on richard falk to introduce some thoughtfulness into the football-rally atmosphere following the horrific crimes on patriots day in boston and the apprehension of the two young men who are evidently the mass killers. how can our country’s involment in so much sffering in the middle east not be part of the conversation as we thoughtfully consider the marathon attacks

Dear Richard, in a strange inversion — yet characteristic of my current ‘island’ preoccupations, having returned home– I caught up with your original reflections on the Boston bombings only after I had read in a Sri Lankan newspaper column about the lynch mob out for you (again). This time it seems worse than ever. Having just read your piece I do not see how even the most powerful electron microscope could show any evidence that you linked or attributed the Boston blasts to Israel or the US tilt to Tel Aviv! The massive distortion itself is evidence of the global (dis) information order and more generally, how ideology works. What you have done instead is to use the Boston bombings to urge reflection on the US public, which is what at any pedagogue should do. It is a pity that others did not. While I am not surprised by the reaction of the lunatic fringe, I am shocked that Ambassador Rice should have tweeted as she has done.

The only criticisms of your piece I would have are of a rather different order. Perhaps (a) the Nelsonian eye turned by the US, including it’s public and intellectuals, to the hideous terrorism perpetrated by the Islamist Chechen separatists (Beslan, the Moscow theater etc) stemming from antipathy towards Putin or Russophobia, (b) the need for a clearer conceptual firebreak between the US ideological justifications for wars of intervention (‘promiscuity’ s you put it) and the doctrine of R2P and (c) the need to look at Cold War US policy in Afghanistan, recent policy Libya, and calls for intervention in Syria and the uncorking of Islamist terrorism should have been touched on.

This apart, maybe you should write a counter-critique, because the distortions must not be allowed to go unchallenged and constitute the last word on the record. You’ll stay as principled as always Richard, and this we all know, but stay safe as well, if you can. We know what they do to prophets.

Thanks, Dayan, both for your supportive comments and insightful critique. I agree that an enlarged perspective along the lines you suggest would be appropriate, and valuable if well done. In some respects, it would require more study on my part to do this in an effective way. I wish you were closer at hand so that we might explore these issues together. Warmly, Richard

Specific details notwithstanding, the Boston bombing was clearly a case of BLOW-BACK from U.S. involvement in the Middle East….not excluding its unqualified support of Israel’s
occupation of the West Bank.

No wake up call’s are being answered, nobody’s looking in the mirror and all taps on the shoulder are being ignored. The door is closed and we are all inside listening to the same music daily. The song playing is that america is a righteous place to a chorus of “I’m a yankee doodle dandy”. Our kids are dressed in american flag clothing even though its not made of kevlar we tell our kids these clothes will protect you. The children dance to the music unaware that the dj has drank the koolade. Its a house party and the whole family is invited. Grandma tells stories of when those awful japs bombed pearl harbor…..grandpa talks about the communist, dad tells stories about the cocaine cartels and mom, poor mom…she tries to tell everyone to stop telling those stories cause she doesn’t want the kids scared….mom dances hoping here kids will believe in fairy tales and know nothing about the truth….In all the stories told at the party tonight none of them are about anything america has done. Everyone is dancing awaiting the next song to play..everyone knows what it is because they only play two songs…this one is “god bless america.

Professor Falk:
It would be difficult to determine what is the single most despicable aspect of politics – bias, falsehood, conformity, slander, hysteria, immaturity – but it just may be the absurd manner in which we present selfish conclusions about violence. I include your post in that assesment.

Many are those who filter violent acts through a personal political agenda rather than wisdom. You must draw very questionable lines within a debate in order to conclude who has been legitimately provoked… and who has not. If a group of Bostonians begins targeting Chechens, are they justified? Have they been provoked? If a deadly drone strike is guided by an officer who lost a family member on 9.11, was that officer provoked? A certain politicized worldview might say no, but anthropology or identity might say yes.

Do you think one should always look beyond the smoke of the immediate for conclusions, or only sometimes?

It is politics which prompt biased responses like yours, responses which pretend to understand when the matter is local and when it is geopolitical, when violence has historical roots and when it is spontaneous, when nations and flags are motivations and when restlessness and self-hatred are the causes, what degree of understanding or insanity is involved, and who has been legitimately provoked. Unless one understands with complete clarity, you will only apply your own political calendar to acts of violence.

Humanity is more complex than the solar system, and those desperate to make violence politically manageable are trying to contain galaxies within lectures.

Your post was unkind to people who have suffered, your fellow citizens.

Will: I do appreciate very much your comment. Although deeply critical of what I had written, I can fully appreciate the deep place from which your concerns emanate. I can only say in response that I didn’t mean to be unkind to those victimized by this terrible event, but to make the simple point that in addition to such empathy and the understandable impulse to punish the perpetrators, it could be helpful in avoiding or at least lessening the prospects of future such tragedies, that we seek to understand the degree to which our violence far from our homeland is causing deep resentment around the world, and when deep resentment exists, it tends to generate sociopathic behavior at the extremes (the Chechen brothers).

Perhaps, you are right that I was not sufficiently sensitive to the suffering of those fellow citizens when I responded. Partly, I did not want to repeat what was so heavily emphasized in the media, and try to add a piece to the complex puzzle by calling attention to this opportunity for self-scrutiny.

Again, what you say about violence and politics is terribly important, and I will think further about it. I agree that we often respond to such public
occasions of this sort on the basis of a particular political viewpoint, and that it might be better to wait until some of the smoke clears before standing too close to the fire.

I understand your point concerning self-examination, and i agree with you. It is foolish to refuse to do so. I might go further and say what others have said, that informed criticism is one of the difficult duties of every patriot.

The point has already been made that trying to make this criminal violence understandable, sensible, even intelligent, while the hospitals are full is inappropriate at best. I understand your point regarding the tone of the majority of news coverage, and your desire to add something to it. Perhaps you do as well when I say that those who hold high office and positions of influence should meet a healthy, constitutional resistance when they characterize tragedy in order to advance a questionable political agenda. Real leadership must have some measure of apolitical maturity in order to be real. And it seems to be sorely lacking.

In this case, I intend to give the fullness of my sympathy and understanding to the suffering of the victims. Zero of either for the motives of the murderers.

Will: Thanks for your thoughtfulness in responding. I think we share a common appreciation of the importance of taking seriously the role of ‘citizen’ to make sure we do not act as a ‘subject,’ confusing obedience with patriotism.

I also did not mean to exhibit any sympathy for the motives of the perpetrators who exhibited despicable sociopathic behavior, but only to suggest that such extremist behavior is usually connected in some way with
a broader set of conditions that we need to comprehend to avoid other unwelcome events. I have in mind the blowback in a globalized world of foreign military intervention in situations other than self-defense, most obviously Iraq.

Will,
I take a much less charitable view of your comments than does Prof. Falk. Without identifying yourself, we know who you are because of this statement: “Do you think one should always look beyond the smoke of the immediate for conclusions, or only sometimes?”, snarkily implying that Falk suggested the Boston bombing was blow back for US foreign policy, including our support of Israel, because he is unfairly “singling out” Israel for this kind of scrutiny, while all sorts of other causal chains go unexamined. Then, you coyly suggest that Falk is a “self-hating Jew”, as if he developed his geo-political views out of a neurotic desire to harm himself because due to his mother’s religion. Zionists can’t conceive that some people do not base their views on their genetics or to enrich themselves. But perhaps the most unmistakable give away about who you are is your use of the trademark hasbarist tactic of cheekily accusing the other person of doing exactly what, in reality, you are doing. When you write about the traits you despise in those you believe are politically motivated, “bias, falsehood, conformity, slander, hysteria, immaturity”, you are obviously characterizing Zionists.

I know it seems unfair to parse your comments in this way, but it is important to explore the workings of the Zionist mind. Maybe every historical episode of a dominant culture prohibiting Judaism was not irrational hatred, but rather a rational effort to force citizens to abandon a system of belief proven to cause adherents to behave aggressively and violently, exactly as we are seeing now in Israel. We are all squeamish about articulating this because of the elaborate program of social conditioning in place, but we must resist if we are to save our country and the world.
Best Wishes!
Walker

Hubris (you claim to speak for me as well as yourself), bias (misrepresenting my words and inserting your own point), and error (you are not correct or factual in either case). Perhaps you think that makes you convincing; what it makes you is the reason so many despise comment boards.

If you enter conversations with the haughty assumption that you are the correct one, that you know what the other really means and that they are dependent on you to inform them, then you are unfit for conversation with another….only with yourself.

With me, you missed the mark completely. Your apparent confidence is therefore a bit comical. I spoke respectfully to Professor Falk and there were no veiled insults in my comment. His response was also civil. You apparently lack this discipline.

If you possess the humility to back up, recognize that you do not know my meaning better than I, and forfeit your conversational superiority complex, then say so. That is a reasonable request and a basic of conversation. If you cannot change your posture, you can save your comments for someone else.

Will,
Fortunately you don’t control this venue, so I will continue to speak to whom I wish, using whatever tone I determine is appropriate to communicate my meaning. I recommend that if you don’t want to be dismissed as a lightweight, that you learn to make your case directly. You say that I am wrong in my appraisal of your zionist leanings, please elaborate and I will try hard to avoid assuming a superior tone in my response.
Walker

Some pretty unkind comments here, and a reluctance to discuss violence in a way that might be helpful. I stopped commenting when I tried to be constructive, and got a ration of venom and obfuscation instead. But as these sort of unhelpful comments are continuing, here was a reply I have sat on for some time, to Fred Skolnik’s “reply” to me.

Fred Skolnik commented on A Commentary on the Marathon Murders.
in response to Erich Kuerschner:

Hi Fred: Where is your evidence that “Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with what the West does.” To start the ball rolling towards an evidence based discussion, i offer the work (and evidence) compiled by Robert Pape, written up in Dying to win”: http://amzn.to/105Tq7o Pape has compiled a database of every suicide bombing and […]
You are confusing Muslim rationalizations for terrorism with the doctrines and worldview at its root. “Referencing” books that you are unequipped to evaluate is not an argument. Start by reading the Koran and the Hadith.
“But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron” (Sura 22:19-21).

Hi Fred:
I acknowledge your right to your beliefs. At issue for me is whether you have any desire to understand those whose beliefs differ. While my training is in science (first physics, then economics), I find Kurt Gödel’s logical construct that deductive reasoning is not self-contained compelling, ie some truths lie outside any axiomatic construct, and may best be reached by intuition. Thus I do not categorically reject your suggestion of scripture as either a substitute or a complement to science (defining science as empirical falsification, ie statements that cannot, at least in principle, be disproved are meaningless).

That said, I find scripture itself (but not the inductive use thereof) also falling within the realm of science, to be verified, EITHER by deduction or induction. Thus when you cite Surah 22-:19-21, I am struck by its similarity to Deuteronomy 32: 22-24. While both have their place for an individual soul, I questioned the value of citing either when trying to carry on discourse between individual humans. Would they not cancel each other out? How are these scriptural passages relevant to unraveling why man chooses to resolve conflict by violence, and more importantly, whether this violence is “there already”, or whether violence is induced? Or in our specific case, WHAT induced it?

In terms of “referencing books”, I FULLY agree that books are a map suggesting relationships, but not ‘the place” itself. That said, “maps” can be shared, and are often a starting point to clarifying discrepancies in individual viewpoints. Is a place to the North or South, as the differing maps suggests? Or if the discrepancy involves differing correlations, is there some way those differences could be reconciled? Thus if one were to assert that Muslim terrorists are poor, uneducated males (your implication that “it appeals to the downtrodden”, “is a product of their economic hardship”), are there any observations you might accept as contradicting that assertion? Is it possible, in your mind, for ANY evidence (observation) to exist that might refute your assertion that the passages in Qur’an are driving terrorism? Or are passages in the Qur’an sufficient “proof”?

I also wish to raise the issue of “unqualified to evaluate.” Are making this assertion on your personal belief that you have sufficient information and innate ability to make such a statement? Is it because you believe only scripture matters, and whatever skill and experience one has in determining whether observable events occur by chance or whether a correlation might indeed be tested to see if “causation” might be implied is not relevant? Or because you believe your understanding is so superior that others are de facto “unqualified to evaluate.”

As this may well be the last time I comment here, and I have thus far not shown my appreciation to Richard Falk for saying what I feel must be said more often (with the hopes that some will engage in good faith discussion, and that leads to more kindness, less hate, less presumption). My hat is off to Richard Falk.

Erich,
Nice try, but I have a feeling your empiricism will not sway the likes of Fred Skolnik. Let me put it to you this way: Fred Skolnik is not part of the same physical universe we inhabit. His world is not influenced by logical constructs, so explaining matters at the atomic level is of no use. Fred made up his mind about the truth when he made Aliyah. For him to change now would be like a New Yorker rooting for the Red Sox. Its about doing anything for the team no matter what, including all manner of mischief. But, try if you must. I’m just trying to save you the trouble.
Walker

I am impressed, Walker, by your persisting willingness and ability to provide uncomfortable answers to haunting questions, making us both think and worry. Perhaps wrongly, I believe it is because you are so deeply concerned with a menaced world and country that you are ready to touch raw nerves. It is a valuable, and never popular, undertaking.

I commented when there were only 27 comments, and mine were held. When Richard Falk made the decision to publish even the hateful and absurd comments (my judgement), and I had a chance to read those, I reached the same conclusion as you. I will respond to comments such as yours, but this one (really a reply to Fred that I had concluded was a waste of time and thus held) was already written. I submit it not as a reply to Fred (a pointless exercise) but just to have it on the record as it was already written.
Fred may have the last word, but not without my being on the record that I find his response w/o value, and worse, displaying a sort of self righteous, holier than thou self importance I find degrading.

Richard,
I am deeply moved and encouraged, thanks. I believe the Internet gives us an unprecedented mechanism for exposing untruths, and this is already having a profound impact. Any disinterested person can read through the comments on a blog like yours and see that one side of this issue routinely lies, and the other side is reasonable and honest. One side is motivated by a desire to preserve ill-gotten gains and harm those they despise, while the other side appears to want peace and mutual prosperity. The problem now is that the folks on the other side can see that the jig us up, and are becoming more desperate and dangerous. Remember, these are the folks that like to brag that if their little real estate gambit in the mid east doesn’t pan out, they will simply turn out the lights on planet earth for good. Apparently they feel like the fate of their tiny group takes precedence over human civilization, and it is up to them to decide whether or not to intentionally and permanently extinguish our species. Given this disturbing reality, our job will be to somehow manage the blow back, while continuing to convince willfully-ignorant Americans, one at a time if necessary. US support for the zionist entity must end entirely, and we must make it clear to our Muslim friends that we have no argument with them, if we hope to ever stop terrorism and reclaim our sense of optimism for a better future.
In solidarity,
Walker Percy

Walter;
You have not mentioned the Boston victims, but you evidently see Zionists behind every tree. Perhaps you read more Freud. You cannot even manage intelligent conversation, yet you proudly announce that you will be managing blowback – what better informed people call terrorism.

Maybe you could test the democratic impulses of your Muslim friends by carrying an Israeli flag thru the streets of Riyadh or Cairo. You could learn something about your own hypocrisy and overcome your fear of Zionism in one easy step!
Shalom

Richard, as your detractors become even more furious and exasperated in their attempted character assassination of you, revealing their own hateful character in the process, it is because you are making waves, shining a light in dark places. Keep it up!

Your commentary is being reproduced in many places. The latest is here:

‘Boston Marathon, This Thing Called Terrorism, and The United States’ by William Blum

Prof Richard Pape’s important book makes extensive reference to the Tamil Tigers. He correctly points out that the non-Islamic Tigers fielded more suicide bombers than all the Islamist groups put together. While wrong in describing them as Marxist (of any stripe), he is right in his empirical observation and related conclusion that neither Islam nor Islamism is the key variable, still less the fount of terrorism.

Given the extensive Sri Lankan experience with terrorism, I would like to suggest the following:
(i) Terrorism must be accurately defined as resort to the witting targeting of non-combatants rather than as any anti-state armed action whatsoever.
(ii) While this is not to applaud any and all actions against ‘hard targets’, there is a very basic distinction between Osama Bin Laden and Che Guevara, and between the Taliban and, say, the Sandinistas.
(iii) The context and chain of causation must be comprehended and condemnation must not substitute for comprehension.
(iv) However, no cause or context can justify terrorism, just as the Treaty of Versailles cannot justify Nazi fascism; thus the purpose of identification of causation is to comprehend, never condone.

Sorry for the self-publicity, but for those who are interested I have developed these arguments in a book entitled ‘Fidel’s Ethics of Violence’ ( Univ of Michigan Press/ Pluto Press 2007)

It is grotesque and cruel to vilify Richard for his attempt to comprehend and caution, which in no way constituted an attempt to condone.

Thanks, Dayan, for these valuable remarks. I think your experience and approach has a major contribution to make, and hope you will write something about ‘terrorism’ in its contemporary context, and stress the point about the Tamil Tigers so as to avoid the kind of Islamophobia that is pushing the West in dangerous directions. We can even collaborate if that has any appeal.

Dear Richard, thank you for your kind words and invitation. Collaboration with you will be a privilege of a lifetime. Sanja has persuaded me that I can and should commence my part of the work now, even while I’m ‘stuck inside of Mobile with those Memphis blues again’.

I appreciate Richard Falk’s courage to point out that it is unfathomable that our country has never really pondered (1) why the atom bombs were not dropped on an unpopulated outer island in order to show Japan that they had to surrender immediately (instead of dropping the bombs on the reserved targets of two cities, so our military could see the what kind of damage the new weapon does to buildings and people) – and (2) what happened to the discussion that really did get started at both grassroots levels and also some media platforms, such as Oprah’s program, for two weeks after 9-11 about why so many people in the world were shockingly pleased that the US had taken a big hit. It was obscene that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, aided by a big media push, managed to shut down the discussion of why people around the world are angry about much of our corporate behavior and foreign policy. The videotape made by Osama bin Laden around the time of 9-11 said the reasons for the attack were (1) the stationing of US troops in the Islamic Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) and (2) the unresolved suffering of the Palestinians. [After 9-11, Saudi Arabia told the US government to immediately withdrew all US troops, which we quietly did.] The media barely reported those stated reasons for the 9-11 attacks, instead going along with the Bush administration’s ubiquitous claim in the fall of 2001 that the reason people around the world are angry with the United States is actually because of their envy of our hamburgers, our hair-dryers, and our freedom. Case closed. So many Americans really did want to explore the deep questions and to learn about the grassroots’ experiences of our foreign policy and corporate behavior in other countries — but the collective discussion was high-jacked. [I wrote an op-ed piece about this matter, “A Living Memorial,” in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 8, 2001.]

As for the unresolved situation in Israel, Israel really is under threat by organizations and governments that want to exterminate it, AND the Palestinian people really are enduring a severe and prolonged suffering. We should support everyone working to find a just, peaceful, and lasting solution.

It is profoundly moral to call for our country’s deep and collective reflection on all the geopolitical issues Richard Falk has named. When Ed Koch was mayor of New York City, he used to periodically ask his constituents at large, “How am I doing?” We as the most powerful country on earth might well ask the same – and be willing to listen to the responses. Only then would we be able to think in an informed way about whether or not we need to effect a course-correction in any area of our foreign policy. If so, that would be far preferable to suffering any further horrendous “blow-backs,” as Falk observes. Ignorance – and certainly not arrogance – is not going to protect us.

Thanks on your marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author. I will remember to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back later in life. I want to encourage that you continue your great work, have a nice morning!

Hey there, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, terrific blog!

I’ve been browsing on-line over Three hours today, having said that i under no circumstances identified any kind of attention-grabbing report like your own house. It is beautiful price plenty of personally. In my opinion, in the event that all web owners and also blog writers built superb content material since you in all probability did, the internet is usually a much more helpful than ever before.

[…] many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination? Richard Falk (special rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council and professor emeritus at […]

[…] In his post at the Foreign Policy Journal, Falk wrote that “as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy,” and he urged Americans to mediate on a line by poet W.H. Auden: “Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return.” […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally posted the commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally postedthe commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally posted the commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally posted the commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally posted the commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally posted the commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally posted the commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind […]

[…] Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, posted a commentary on his blog about the Boston bombings in which he makes the completely uncontroversial observation […]

[…] Shortly after the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, published an analysis of the episode entitled “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders.” […]

[…] Shortly after the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, published an analysis of the episode entitled “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders.” […]

[…] Shortly after the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, published an analysis of the episode entitled “A Commentary on the marathon murders.” […]

[…] Shortly after the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, published an analysis of the episode entitled “A Commentary on the marathon murders.” […]

[…] Shortly after the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, published an analysis of the episode entitled “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders.” […]

[…] and asked to step down from his position at the UN because of a blog post he published on April 19, “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders.” Accused of anti-Semitism and of blaming the bombings on the victims themselves, he and his […]

[…] In his post at the Foreign Policy Journal, Falk wrote that “as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy,” and he urged Americans to mediate on a line by poet W.H. Auden: “Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return.” […]

[…] In his post at the Foreign Policy Journal, Falk wrote that “as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy,” and he urged Americans to mediate on a line by poet W.H. Auden: “Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return.” […]

Richard Falk

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He initiated this blog partly in celebration of his 80th birthday.